Carroll's Call
- Thread starter DennyDoyle'sBoil
- Start date
Would the people who wanted to just run the ball have been satisfied with this outcome: run (stuffed), timeout, run (stuffed), time expires after 3rd down. That was a real possibility. Maybe the correct decision WAS to screw 4th down and bet the game on two Lynch runs. But the second guessing if the game ended without a 4th down play would have dwarfed what actually happened.
The one bit of commentary (which I've heard in numerous places) that absolutely makes no sense was this:
1. Carroll was an idiot for passing on second down, and
2. BB was even more of an idiot for letting the clock run.
You can criticize one or the other but not both. Seattle absolutely approaches that series differently if the clock had stopped with 50 seconds remaining. A BB timeout only really makes sense if the Pats are going to let them score.
The one bit of commentary (which I've heard in numerous places) that absolutely makes no sense was this:
1. Carroll was an idiot for passing on second down, and
2. BB was even more of an idiot for letting the clock run.
You can criticize one or the other but not both. Seattle absolutely approaches that series differently if the clock had stopped with 50 seconds remaining. A BB timeout only really makes sense if the Pats are going to let them score.
1) You can pass on third down.
2) Your passing play can be a lower risk (but harder to pull off) play, like a fade.
2) Your passing play can be a lower risk (but harder to pull off) play, like a fade.
I think the thought was that had they run and gotten stuffed on 2nd down, the Pats would know a pass was coming on 3rd down, so he tried to cross that up.
He could have avoided all the issues if he didn't bleed so much time off after Lynch's run on first down--that play started with 1:06 on the clock. The pass play started with :26. That's what caused the problem. And, I think at least, that was caused because Carroll thought BB was going to call TO after the run. He did not, the clock bled down and Carroll decision tree became jumbled.
I can imagine Carroll on the sideline wondering why BB didn't stop the clock and instead of ACTING kept waiting, then it was too late.
He could have avoided all the issues if he didn't bleed so much time off after Lynch's run on first down--that play started with 1:06 on the clock. The pass play started with :26. That's what caused the problem. And, I think at least, that was caused because Carroll thought BB was going to call TO after the run. He did not, the clock bled down and Carroll decision tree became jumbled.
I can imagine Carroll on the sideline wondering why BB didn't stop the clock and instead of ACTING kept waiting, then it was too late.
With regards to #1: I agree with you. They tried a high percentage pass play. The criticism comes from the fact that the Seahawks have the league's best running back, and they only needed a yard, so you should go with your strength. Which is what they likely would have done had the pass fallen incomplete.Eddie Jurak said:
The criticism of Belichick is stupid. He knew Seattle had one timeout, and he decided to trust his defense in that situation. By calling a timeout he (a) gives Seattle more chances to score; and (b) gives Brady one less timeout to work with in the desperation drive. I also don't agree with the analysts that think a Brady FG drive was a gimme; Seattle has one the best secondaries in the league, and getting those 50 yards was not likely. Even if successful, you'd still have a long FG attempt, and then overtime after that.
lexrageorge said:
It is a bid odd that I've seen analysts saying Pete Carroll should have called a TO and then later in the conversation/article, wonder why BB didn't call TO.
Dude--if the offense calling a TO would be beneficial to them, perhaps it would NOT be a good idea for the defense to do it for them.
DrewDawg said:
Because the last play of the game (other than the kneel-downs) becomes the overwhelmingly most remembered, talked about, whatever you want to call it play. The Kearse catch will never be "helmet catch 2" or anything else because it is now irrelevant. OK, out here in 49er country, nobody's told me the Pats were lucky, yet, but if somebody does, I guess I'll come back with the "yeah, but...".H78 said:
DrewDawg said:
I watched the 4th quarter again last night. I believe he clearly was waiting for the timeout from Belichick. They showed Carroll up close after the 1st down run and it appeared he kept looking right across the field at the Patriots sideline waiting for it.
DukeSox said:
...and made certain to get out of the end zone.
I'll always believe that the key to the game was the Patriots scoring 2 late touchdowns against the best defense in the NFL.
A TD and Field Goal makes it 24-24 late. Kearse probably doesn't make that ridiculous catch as the Lynch just keeps barreling downfield to get them in field goal range. Carroll doesn't have to make complicated clock management decisions and Wilson doesn't need to think (or risk an interception).
...and Belichick deciding that letting them score with < 1 minute was too big of a risk against a last possession pass defense by the Hawks starting at the 20.
Out coached. Out played.
Random observation, with no data to back me up: While Lynch is a tough runner, his strength seems to be at the point of attack, on contact. That's where "beast mode" comes from. He doesn't seem to hit the hole particularly hard, so while he is a tough runner to tackle, he might not be the ideal back for goal line situations.
I don't think Seattle scoring by running the ball with Lynch in that situation is as probable as most seem to suggest.
I don't think Seattle scoring by running the ball with Lynch in that situation is as probable as most seem to suggest.
Gambler7 said:
Kevin Youkulele said:
Yeah, I'm coming around to thinking that this was the key. When Belichick decided to let the clock tick down, he basically funneled the Seahawks into a fairly predictable series of events. If Seattle wants to maximize their chances to score, they have to pass on second down (else they're forced to pass on 3rd, which the Patriots would then know is coming), so the three plays are almost definitely going to be a pass, then a run, then something (depending on the pass and the run). If Carroll hadn't waited, they could have run 3 draws - or anything else.
Edit:
Sox and Rocks said:
Data backs that up. Lynch is 5 for 12 in reaching the endzone from the 1 over the last 3 years, and he's 1 for 5 this year. I was listening to random football radio show last night, and they said that his success rate over the last 3 years is 30th out of the 39 RBs with at least 10 attempts. (I'm too lazy to track down the latter statistic, so I'm taking it on faith here, but it doesn't seem far-fetched.) League average this year was 57.5% conversion rate, so he's been below-average.
I agree with the call, although I bought into the "worst call of all time" in the moment. Doing the unexpected is the essence of football. If BB was in the same situation, I'm pretty certain he'd be passing on 2nd down (and maybe 3rd and 4th given the Pats running game that day.
Also, I think BB had witnessed firsthand how tough it is to go 50+ yards in less than a minute against a top D. He had Randy Moss and Wes Welker and Tom Brady in his prime and couldn't pull it off. The stakes are too high and the defense is too good. He had to feel that a goal line stand was his best hope. And the Pats have been good at them over the years. Amazing self-control for him and his coaching staff (if Rex Ryan is DC, does he call TO?).
By the way, this gets lost - what are the chances that Brady can't avoid a safety if Bennet doesn't make contact? He had so little room. There wouldn't be much time if Seattle then had to receive a kick, but the offsides might have cost them a desperate last shot. As we saw in the Packers game - and this one - then anything can happen.
Also, I think BB had witnessed firsthand how tough it is to go 50+ yards in less than a minute against a top D. He had Randy Moss and Wes Welker and Tom Brady in his prime and couldn't pull it off. The stakes are too high and the defense is too good. He had to feel that a goal line stand was his best hope. And the Pats have been good at them over the years. Amazing self-control for him and his coaching staff (if Rex Ryan is DC, does he call TO?).
By the way, this gets lost - what are the chances that Brady can't avoid a safety if Bennet doesn't make contact? He had so little room. There wouldn't be much time if Seattle then had to receive a kick, but the offsides might have cost them a desperate last shot. As we saw in the Packers game - and this one - then anything can happen.
Brady almost never loses yardage on a sneak, but man that would have been one hell of a dogpile.DourDoerr said:
Kevin Youkulele said:
With everyone expecting a Brady sneak, it would've been the perfect time to call a quick slant play to pick up a couple yards.
I know it's unscientific and isn't backed up by the numbers that have been cited concerning Lynch's short-yardage performance over the course of the season, but I tend to subscribe to the "What was I most afraid they would do?" school of thought on this sort of thing. I was fearing and essentially resigned to a Beast handoff and score there, and feeling like I was re-living the end of the second NYG Super Bowl. When it became clear that Wilson was dropping straight back to throw, I had a glimmer of hope.
I was thinking about this and why would the Pats ever snap the ball? Keep trying to draw them offside, take the delay of game over and over till they flinch. They are losing nothing by doing that.DourDoerr said:
I mostly agree, but think the scariest thing might have been Wilson on a roll out. That dude is so shifty, he could have ran in if there was space, chuck it to through the end zone if not. Maybe they didn't call that because it would have taken too much time?ObstructedView said:
Cabin Mirror said:
My main fear was Beast Mode and #2 was a fake toss to him and rollout by Wilson with someone like Butler having to chose between leaving his guy or going after Wilson and hoping someone saw what was happening and sliding over to his receiver.
My #3 was the TE blocking, then slipping out in the confusion and being all alone.
I had lots of fears at that point.
And yeah, maybe they had fears of how much time a rollout would take, but they would NOT have had that issue if Carroll had called TO after the Lynch run.
Most plays are around 5-7 seconds of live action (unless there is a long run down the field, which could not happen here); 10 seconds is long. If the ball is snapped at 26 seconds to go, they'd have been fine as long as Russell throws it away rather than getting tackled in bounds.Cabin Mirror said:
The Economist's take is excellent if you can wade through the accent and the play to a broad audience:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/02/game-theory-american-football?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/defendingtheindefensible
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/02/game-theory-american-football?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/defendingtheindefensible
I post on a very small neutral sight (two Pats fans) and Carroll's call and Pats luck have been the Pat-hater (mostly Giant fans) mantra. I reminded them that the Pats have already been Tyreed and Manninghammed out of SB they were leading with 2 minutes to go, it seemed cosmically right that they should not be "Kearsed" out of another SB.DrewDawg said:
The response was there was no luck in Tyree's helmet catch, it was athletic prowess. I responded it takes offense, defense, special teams and coaching all working together to win football games. And while we could argue ho had a better defense, did they really want to argue who had the better head coach?
I then posted a couple of "Are the Pats the greatest dynasty ever" articles, and that seemed to sedate the haters.
Tyree. Manningham. Gronk injuries. Welker injuries. Talib injuries. Bernard fucking Pollard. Seriously, bad luck has cost this Patriots team 2-3 more Super Bowls. Who gives a shit what anyone outside of New England thinks about the outcome of this game. It was about time this team caught a break. The rest of the league is "lucky" Brady and BB don't have seven Lombardi trophies.
It was a high percentage pass play that Butler made a fantastic play on, there was no luck involved. Looking at the separation of the receiver and Butler at the point of Wilson's release, you would have sworn that that pass would have been completed. Full credit to Butler and the Patriots for realizing what the play was going to be based on hours of watching SeaHawk film.
Carroll did not want to score at 1:00 minute left and give the Pats time for a field goal drive. Having run the clock down, he felt he had to pass at 00:26 to stop the clock and give himself three chances; plus he didn't expect an 8-man front against his 3 WR's.
I think his intent was to change personnel after the pass--he said he didn't have enough blockers-- and run. There's a reasonable chance Lynch could have lost yardage as the line was constituted. BB had the perfect group out there.
I think his intent was to change personnel after the pass--he said he didn't have enough blockers-- and run. There's a reasonable chance Lynch could have lost yardage as the line was constituted. BB had the perfect group out there.
Why is the David Tyree catch always considered luck? It was an incredible catch by a guy who sucked as a WR. But it was still a great catch with Harrison draped all over him.
I think this all came down to matchups and personnel and Carroll has said as much in his post game press conferences. He said that he wanted to use the clock and throw on 2nd down, and then use 3rd and 4th down to run it need be. However, the mistake he made and publically stated was that the Pats were in their goal line defense, which is why he thought the passing play would work. Obviously, the Pats weren't in the goal line, because Butler wouldn't have been on the field if they were. Carroll misread the personnel on the field, and in addition, he didn't have his goal line offense out there. Had Carroll trotted out the big dog/goal line offense, you might have seen BB use a timeout immediately before the snap, but as it turned out, BB got exactly what he wanted. He had the right defense on the field against the offense he wanted (a shotgun snap from the one yard line).
Don't get me wrong, I almost lost my voice screaming at the television for BB to call a timeout, but in retrospect, he outmaneuvered Carroll like only the best coach in the history of the game could do at that moment. The fact that he had his defense, and a no-name defensive back, practiced, ready and waiting for that EXACT play was just icing on the cake. Butler and Browner then executing it perfectly. Well, it don't get no better than that. Football is a game of chess, and Carroll got beat by the greatest grand master of all time.
Don't get me wrong, I almost lost my voice screaming at the television for BB to call a timeout, but in retrospect, he outmaneuvered Carroll like only the best coach in the history of the game could do at that moment. The fact that he had his defense, and a no-name defensive back, practiced, ready and waiting for that EXACT play was just icing on the cake. Butler and Browner then executing it perfectly. Well, it don't get no better than that. Football is a game of chess, and Carroll got beat by the greatest grand master of all time.
The Tyree catch was the intersection of skill, luck, an All-pro safety misplaying the ball, (and Eli escaping a Richard Seymour sack with no fucking holding call). There's a reason in the history of the NFL it is considered the greatest catch in post season history.
There's a shit ton of great receivers who have played football and 99% would never make the last catch Tyree did.
There's a shit ton of great receivers who have played football and 99% would never make the last catch Tyree did.
Yup I've heard G-Men fans make that argument for seven years. No luck at.mt8thsw9th said:
The Manningham pass was great, no ifs, and or buts, but Tyree ball was a duck wobbling over the middle waiting to get shot down.
Belichick has said that he was going to call the timeouts if the Seahawks ran and failed to score.Eddie Jurak said:
But what is striking is how utterly at ease BB looks late in the fourth. Brady has the laser focus look going. but Bill? Yes focused, but also enjoying himself, as though he knew how the whole thing was going to play out.
Uncanny.
Uncanny.
This play is also a great example of someone getting too cute, trying to milk clock and not making taking the lead the number one priority.Deathofthebambino said:
You have the best D in the league. Score, go up and then take your chances. Instead they got cute, got caught off guard and lost right there.
Instead Pete ran on first, then they let the clock run all the way down, the. They "had to pass" since they didn't have enough time to run. Get to the one, get back to the LOS against the same personnel you just got 4 yards against and run it three times.
This x 1,000. With less than 30 seconds left in the Super Bowl, how anyone could be concerned with anything other than punching it in is utterly beyond me. Instead Carroll is worried about milking the clock, and is essentially willing to waste a play. I guess among other things it's a tribute to Brady's greatness, as the fear of giving him the ball back with *any* time remaining outweighed the importance of, you know, scoring the go-ahead TD.NortheasternPJ said:
This is all true. The response of those making the "luck argument" is that it was lucky that Carroll made the decision to pass at all and it was also lucky that he made the decision to pass to the middle of the field.scotian1 said:
And no doubt, the Pats were fortunate in both respects, but as many others have pointed out, BB's coaching had something to do with the former (not calling the time out and personnel grouping) and the Pats had actually anticipated and practiced for the latter. Sometimes you make your own luck and this was apparently one of those times, at least to some extent.
For me, it's a little bit annoying to hear people emphasizing a side point, just as it was annoying in 2003 when all people could talk about was Janet Jackson in the aftermath of such an incredible game. But as has also been pointed out, in the end it doesn't matter and with the Pats, many opposing fans with seize on almost anything to diminish their accomplishments no matter what happens.
And damn, however we got there, I could watch that Butler interception continuously for a week and not get bored. The You Tube clip from the side is priceless.
I've watched that INT clip more than any other sports play ever, thanks to the prevalence of gifs these days.
I hope the day never comes when I'm sick of watching it.
I hope the day never comes when I'm sick of watching it.
One of the things I've noticed in the days after the game is that--much like "Deflate-gate"'s oft repeated mantra of 2psi per ball--Pete Carroll "blew it" has become ingrained as truth despite some evidence to the contrary.
How does this phenomenon, of having things repeated over and over and becoming ground truth, happen?
Another example would be that Yoko "broke up" the Beatles. This, despite every remaining band member denying it for decades. Is it laziness on the part of the public?
How does this phenomenon, of having things repeated over and over and becoming ground truth, happen?
Another example would be that Yoko "broke up" the Beatles. This, despite every remaining band member denying it for decades. Is it laziness on the part of the public?
millionthcustomer said:
I don't place a ton of blame on the public -- it's just how most humans process and interpret information, with heuristics, framing, etc. It's like how economists call elements of human behavior that don't fit under a rational agent model "aberrations" or some such -- it's not really an aberration because it's just how people are, even though it can be frustrating to witness.
For me, the blame is on the media for exploiting these elements of non-rational human behavior while pretending to be objective and level-headed in its reporting.
Yeah, this play is on Wilson, if he pulls that ball in he can walk into the endzone and probably has time to hit the Taco Bell drive-thru for some nachos while doing. He needs to realise that Browner blew up the pick and that the right side of the field is open for him to bootleg. And, honestly? He's their best offensive player, so putting it on him to make the play is the right call, he just had a brain fart.crystalline said: